More on Who's a Journalist

Bringing in an historical perpsective, Boston University's Chris Daly says we should ask Thomas Jefferson to help us figure out who journalists are. Good advice, as you'll see if you read his essay. He sums up:

Anyone who engages in reporting -- whether for newspapers, magazines, radio, television, or blogs -- deserves equal protection under those laws, whether the news is delivered with a quill pen or a computer.

Dan Bricklin adds some ideas.

Comments

[Al]

Very good article.

He says "But that is not to say that bloggers have carte blanche. It is important to remember that the First Amendment is a limit on the government's power to impose prior restraint -- that is, to prevent ideas from reaching the public by shutting down a newspaper before publication. It has always left journalists open to consequences that might arise after publication -- such as being sued for libel or being ordered by a judge to reveal a confidential source."

I'd like to amplify my comments on threads on some other posts here. Daly rightly points out that "journalists" are "open to consequences." Whether it's Freedom of the Press (the only private business with constitutional protections?) or Freedom of Speech, those people or entities exercising these freedoms have responsibilities. You can't just do what you want.

To the topic, so are we saying that anyone can be a journalist? But to get some of the protections, you need to be a "reporter," where a significant amount of one's time is being a reporter?

Are we going towards some type of licensing or approval process? At what point does someone get freedom of the press protections? Anyone can put a band-aid on, but (today) it takes a licensed physician to perform operations, provide reliable diagnosis’s, dispense medications, etc.

[manu martin]

I thank Chris Daly for helping me better understand "History of Freedom of Speech" and what we are facing now, "What is a Journalist?"

I personally think that I have the right to express myself to others about anything. I have a choice to view other's viewpoints about anything if I choose.

I am commenting on your views, however important it is to you or not, or if it has any value. What does it matter?

What matters is that we are sharing our viewpoints about a particular subject, 'What is a Journalist'.

As to Apple's Lawsuit against the three Blog sites, Santa Clara's Superior Court ruling in favor of the Plantiff, 'Apple Computer' this is the beginning of the debate.

After reading the three declarations submitted by independent journalists on the behalf of the three blogging website's defendants, it seemed to me that the superior judge would clearly throw the case out.

I am just wondering if this is Apple's Marketing tool to keep attention on its products? Dan Gilmore's Blog has a current topic, "Economics of News (Not Newspapers)", and James Hamilton, professor of economics and public policy at Duke University. (His new book, All the News That's Fit to Sell", should be required reading in the industry.)

I submit that the courts will eventually favor the Blogger's website's protection under the first amendment and sheild laws, even though they are not employed by the traditional media and using the latest, hottest way to reach our 300 million US citizens, and our global population.

The internet is really our current means for people to become more informed and to have a voice. If the courts choose to erode our precious rights to freedom of expression then its time for another evaluation of what Lexington was all about and who was it intended for.